You do not have a theory, you have only a conjectural hypothesis of the same quality as the ID hypothesis here, but are too blind to see it.

Which I.D. hypothesis? The general one, that the world was intelligently designed, which I say makes no predictions, or the one that you and GDR are putting forward which is something like:An intelligently designed world would have principles/laws, or something like that?

If you want to phrase that in your own way as an inductive hypothesis and argue it, I'd be happy to take on both you and GDR in a great debate.

But what I'm pointing out here is that both of you don't seem to understand the difference between hypothesising that intelligently designed worlds would have principles, and being able to demonstrate by logic that principles are a necessary prediction of an I.D. world. Why would a miraculous world necessarily falsify the hypothesis of intelligent creation in the way that an Obama anti-Christ would necessarily falsify my theory?

Anyway, if the board permits both of you to participate, and I see no reason why not, let's go for a GD on your hypothesis. Let's face it, the board's quiet, and we've proven that we can entertain a peanut gallery!

As for cognitive dissonance, I can understand that spending a lot of time arguing against people known as creationists while at the same time believing in a creator who created everything could result in it, and could lead to some bizarre resolutions of the conflict in one's mind.

The problem of the "anything sufficiently in advance of our technology and ability to understand of the universe can be taken as Magic" (paraphrased) makes the actual observation of supernatural magic difficult, but it would need to be something that cannot be explained by natural means and that breaks one or more natural explanations -- a fairly steep requirement -- to reach some skeptics.

And again, conjectures over whether it is one or the other are useless without additional information.

The question here is about genetic similarity and whether or not it is predicted by ID in the same way that it is predicted by common descent/evolutionary theory. Right?

If so - The answer is obviously not.

Genetic similarity is a logical consequence of incremental evolution that occurs as a result of small genetic changes. If closely related/recently-diverging species were not genetically similar we would have to fundamentally rethink the whole basis of evolution.

Evolution by incremental genetic change predicts genetic similarity and would be effectively falsified if this were not the case.

Conversely if different species with recent common ancestors were not genetically similar it wouldn't falsify ID claims about the origins of species or how change occurs. Because ID claims amount to nothing more than a post hoc rationalisation of what we actually see and the inclusion of "magic" somewhere along the line. There are no predictions. There is no possibility of falsification. And any "support" that genetic similarity supposedly provides for ID only comes about as a result of "Well it makes sense to me for a designer to do it like that" type thinking.

As the logical (and potentially falsifying) consequence of one hypothesis but simply the post-hoc subjective "support" of another - genetic similarity can only meaningfully be considered as evidence in favour of one of these two competing theories.

Herebe writes:

It was suggested that genetic similarity is also compatible with ID as well as common descent so it is ambiguous as to relatedness. I agreed that it is indeed compatible with both ideas. However, I suggested that common descent predicted similarity while ID did not.

All sorts of unfalsifiable nonsense can be made to be compatible with a given set of observations. But such claims do nothing to detract from the evidenced conclusions except give some cause for the tentativity that is present in any scientific conclusion anyway.

I was going to let this go and let you and RAZD deal with it in the GD, but then I realized that since I had opened it up in the OP to present other predictions that ID makes I realized your point is actually on topic.

You proposed three options regarding the existence of principals in deciding whether principals are a prediction of ID theory or not.

1> If we found ourselves in a world in which magic seemed to operate freely and there were no rules, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. 2> If we found ourselves in a world which seemed to operate very consistently on predictable laws, but we identified the occasional miracle that broke those laws, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. 3> And if we found ourselves in a world that appeared to have set physical principles that were never to our knowledge broken, that's perfectly consistent with the hypothesis.

{reference numbers added}

Magic would not be magic without principals. What makes something magic is that it defies or breaks known principals. Are you familiar with the magician Criss Angel? What makes his magic so incredible is that he defies these principals that we know just cannot be defied. He levitates (defies gravity), walks on water, passes through solid objects, has two objects occupy the same space at the same time, and can read people's minds. Criss is actually an illusionist - he creates the illusion that he is breaking these principals. However, the point is that if his tricks did not defy (or appear to defy) those principals, who would find them interesting? And they wouldn't be magic - they would be normal.

Magic defies known principals. As an example, if we were in a universe without the principal of gravity, it would not be magic for me to levitate. It would simply be the norm. Without principals ... no magic.

So your option #1 (magic with no principals) cannot exist. Which leaves us with option 2 and 3, both of which require principals. Therefore, according to your own assertion, an ID hypothesis would predict a universe with principals since it is necessary to that hypothesis.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

I have been meaning to reply to some of your posts, but have been distracted, so I am finally getting around to it.

In the first place, ID as a concept is so loosely defined that one cannot say what it predicts at all.

While the global concept of ID doesn't make any true predictions, specific ID hypotheses do make testable predictions. For example, the ID hypothesis that "irreducible complexity can only arise through intelligent intervention" is quite testable. The hypothesis would predict that there are no non-teleological pathways to IC systems.

Conclusion:Before we can make any statement about what ID predicts, ID as a scientific hypothesis must first be adequately defined.

This is probably one of the biggest reasons why I have not personally been able to support or "buy into" the ID movement. A specific, unified and cohesive hypothesis that can be tested and modified would go a long way to gaining support of the scientific community. However, it doesn't appear to be forthcoming at the moment.

I can appreciate the work you have done developing specific, testable hypotheses. Honestly, they are a little beyond my comprehension at this time, I don't know a whole lot about molecular genetics, just intro level genetics. So its hard for me to comment on whether it is a viable hypothesis or not. I did have some questions on your Front Loading thread and I will ask them over there when I get a chance.

So, good work.

HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

Also, the question is a bit irrelevant to me because, for the most part, I'm trying not to argue for ID based on the implausibility of evolution but rather based on positive evidence for ID. In other words, it is perhaps possible for non-teleological processes to produce life but this does not mean that these processes did produce life. When discussing biological origins, it must be remembered that we are talking about actual history and not about what could have been.

Yes, too many creationist and IDers are anti-evolutionists rather than pro-creation or pro-intelligent design. Their misconception is that if evolution is proven false, then their theory is true by default. This approach causes them to ignore reality on many occasions. So, a positive approach is quite refreshing.

In summary, the argument that ID necessarily leads back to a deity is not at all rigorous and makes several problematic assumptions.

But ultimately the argument would lead back to some type of non-created, teleological entity. A deity would imply that this supernatural being has contact with the human race and that would not necessarily be true. But without a final cause, you have the problem of infinite regression. So, are you referring to deity in the above quote in the context of a supernatural being that has contact with humans? Not meaning a supernatural, final cause?

HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

By the way, a designer is limited by its building materials (unless it is supernatural). Designers have limits too, ya know. Furthermore, if a designer is designing through evolution, then of course we'll see a nested hierarchy.

It seems that the main difference (at least the difference we should care about) between a 'designer designing through evolution' and 'standard evolution' is purpose. Without purpose there would just be no real difference between the two. Why should we put the effort into distinguishing between the two if there is no real difference in the effect.

It should stand to reason then that in order for this to be a worthwhile pursuit, we should be able to detect not only design, but also purpose. In fact, perhaps purpose should be a prediction of sorts of an intelligent design hypothesis. Although, I have absolutely no idea how you could test for purpose.

Without purpose don't we just have evolution?

HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This is similar to a point I have argued before, that the scientific process would only recognize two categories for behavior: (1) behavior tentatively understood and explained by current theory, and (2) behavior not yet fully understood or adequately explained by current theory ... and that any magical behavior would be automatically cast into (2), without having to accept or rule out a possibility of it actually being magic, just unexplained ... because this is just how science works, not because of any preconception or bias on the part of the people involved.

So your option #1 (magic with no principals) cannot exist. Which leaves us with option 2 and 3, both of which require principals. Therefore, according to your own assertion, an ID hypothesis would predict a universe with principals since it is necessary to that hypothesis.

So in effect, it is not a matter of whether principles are used to create a universe, but which ones are used ... and which ones not ... on a regular basis, and then whether there are different principles applied occasionally at other times, which then would appear to be magical compared to the regular ones.

(1) behavior tentatively understood and explained by current theory, and (2) behavior not yet fully understood or adequately explained by current theory ... and that any magical behavior would be automatically cast into (2), without having to accept or rule out a possibility of it actually being magic, just unexplained ... because this is just how science works, not because of any preconception or bias on the part of the people involved.

But what we have in this thread is a phenomenon (genetic similarity) that is both explained by, and indeed predicted by, current theory and which would falsify that theory were it not the case Vs some vague proclamations that some hypothetical and un-evidenced designer would have done it that way too.

Surely there is no contest in terms of which of these two alternatives genetic similarity can be considered positive evidence in favour of  Right?

I don't want to get to deep into this at this time (personal reasons), but

But what we have in this thread is a phenomenon (genetic similarity) that is both explained by, and indeed predicted by, current theory and which would falsify that theory were it not the case Vs some vague proclamations that some hypothetical and un-evidenced designer would have done it that way too.

Typical argument from you. The basic issue (to me) is that the current theory is based on the principles we see in action, whether those principles were put in place during the creation or not. Thus the result would be the same (a nested hierarchy), and thus this cannot be used to back-predict or reverse engineer a designer or a lack of designer/s.

Surely there is no contest in terms of which of these two alternatives genetic similarity can be considered positive evidence in favour of  Right?

I think this is pretty much agreed by all. (If anyone disagrees they haven't spoken up yet)

When I wrote my OP, I was sure that the main question would be easily answered and would lead to a short discussion. Therefore, I opened it up by asking a follow-up question: What other predictions does ID make? My expectation was for it to follow in the same vein as the original position, ie. an observation may be compatible with both alternatives, but not predicted of one or the other. In order for an ID hypothesis to be valid, it must make a prediction that common descent does not.

I didn't intend it to be a free-for-all discussion of everything related to ID, but for discussion related to what ID does or should predict.

So far, it hasn't gone too far away from that. At this point, I would conclude that a general ID hypothesis is too vague to make any predictions. In order for ID proponents to make predictions, they need to state a very specific hypothesis and what prediction that specific hypothesis makes. This is the type of work Genomicus is doing, and should be commended for his efforts, even if one doesn't agree with the conclusion.

So as far as I am concerned, the main question has been answered, but we still have room for 170 more posts in this thread, so we may as well use them . Not much else being discussed except politics

HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

and thus this cannot be used to back-predict or reverse engineer a designer or a lack of designer/s.

Good point RAZD. It does seem that some think that because ID doesn't make a particular prediction that it means the reverse is true, ie. there is no designer, which is not actually a valid conclusion based on the evidence.

HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca